Follow this link to my BLOCKBUSTER STORY of how Brett Kimberlin, a convicted terrorist and perjurer, attempted to frame me for a crime, and then got me arrested for blogging when I exposed that misconduct to the world. That sounds like an incredible claim, but I provide primary documents and video evidence proving that he did this. And if you are moved by this story to provide a little help to myself and other victims of Mr. Kimberlin’s intimidation, such as Robert Stacy McCain, you can donate at the PayPal buttons on the right. And I thank everyone who has done so, and will do so.

Thursday, August 15, 2013

Vile: Brett Kimberlin’s Manipulation of His Daughter

This is the latest post in what I half-jokingly call The Kimberlin Saga®. If you are new to the story, that’s okay! Not
everyone reads my blog. The short
version is that Kimberlin has been harassing me for over a year, his worst
conduct being when he attempted to frame me for a crime. I recognize that this might sound like an
incredible claim, but I provide video and documentary evidence of that fact; in
other words, you don’t have to believe my word.
You only have to believe your eyes.
So, if you are new to the story, go to this page and you’ll be able to catch up on what has been happening.

[Update: Please note that I have removed the first name of Ms.
Kimberlin at her request and left only her first initial, "T." She is, after all, a victim of sexual abuse and those
kinds of reasonable requests will be honored.
While the moral right to privacy of rape victims is not absolute, it
seems to be reasonably asserted here.]

So on Monday we saw the latest
round of Brett Kimberlin v. T. Kimberlin.
Both were seeking a protective order against the other. Brett was technically seeking a protective
order against T. on behalf of their children—not supposedly on his own behalf—on
the theory that T. abused her daughters.
T. sought a protective order on the theory that Brett had abused
her—in part by his statutory rape of her at a young age. There was a lot that was interesting that
happened in the hearing. A lot of the
smaller details will be covered in future posts, but this post will give you a
good overview.

The first piece of news was that
this time T. had counsel. Zoa
Barnes who previously represented John Hoge in his peace orders against Brett Kimberlin
and Bill Schmalfeldt was able to represent T. that day. John had told me that he selected Zoa Barnes for
his cases because she was a family lawyer and thus brought that perspective to
the table. And she quite handily shut
Brett Kimberlin down previously. So when
T. looked for a recommendation for an attorney, Zoa was the natural
choice.

As I indicated before, I wasn’t
there. But I have listened to the audio
recording and I have consulted with William Hoge IV, (John’s son) and I have a
pretty good picture of what happened. Of
course, since I wasn’t there, I didn’t get to see the look on Brett’s face when
he realized this time his wife had counsel and one who had so stymied him in
the past.

You see, the last time Zoa Barnes
appeared against him, before he got two words out, she pointed out that under
Maryland law, a convicted perjurer cannot testify. On that occasion Brett looked like he had
swallowed a fly and really lost his cool, claiming speciously that the First
Amendment forbade that result (there is no First Amendment right to testify). That judge didn’t take the claim seriously
and told him he could not testify, significantly stymieing his defense.

Of course she did the same thing
again. Brett this time claimed that
there was some technicality his attorney failed to invoke that might have saved
him and so on. Who knows if it was true,
and ultimately the judge didn’t care. He
was a convicted perjurer and therefore he was barred from testifying.

Brett also, once again, proved he
didn’t know the first thing about the rules of evidence. He attempted to introduce all kinds of stuff
that he allegedly saw on the internet about Jay Elliott (and remember,
everything Brett says is presumptively untrue), for instance, but he had zero
comprehension of the necessity of authentication.

Let me explain the problem in
simple terms. A great man once said the
following: “You cannot trust everything you read on the internet.” And who said that? Abraham Lincoln, of course.

...which is my joking way of
pointing out that just because something is written on the internet doesn’t
mean it is true. How many times have you
heard of famous quotes by the founding fathers, that turned out not to actually
been said by them? And do we even have
to start with Wikipedia once calling Condi Rice a “concert p---s”? So if you want to introduce Jay Elliott’s
writings on the internet, you have to somehow prove that Jay Elliott wrote
them. And this is doubly true, in this
case, because Brett and his team have a history of falsifying evidence. It is precisely because this possibility
exists (as well as more honest misunderstandings) that the rule for
authentication exists.

So being prohibited from
testifying and having to actually follow the rules of evidence strictly, threw
a massive monkey wrench in his case. For
long periods of time, Brett would start to speak and you would hear Zoa go “objection”
and the judge say, “sustained,” without missing a beat.

So first Brett called T. to
the stand and she seemed to do admirably, standing up to him. She denied ever hurting her child and denied
several allegations to that effect. I
also particularly enjoyed listening to Brett try to get her to say bad things
about me and be completely stymied in that way.
Brett is still clinging to the pitiful lie that I supposedly
hospitalized him on January 9, 2012. You
can view the actual footage from the security cameras, here:

Unfortunately for me T. was
out of the country. I say that is
unfortunate because she could have called him a liar, as he plainly was. All she could say, was she had no idea if he
had been to the hospital. And when he asked
if I had threatened him or his family, she pointedly said that she knew he claimed I had. In other words, “yeah, you said it, and I don’t
believe you anymore.” That was
gratifying.

And then Brett called her teenage
daughter to the stand. I am not going to
share her name, but T. has a fourteen year old daughter and a
nine-year-old, so you will seen me refer to her as some variation of calling
her the “teenager.”

I will not go blow-by-blow as to
what the teenage daughter testified to, but I will say that if you believed
what she said, it was definitely abuse.
I mean she alleged that once her mother spanked her so hard she was
bruised to the point she couldn’t sit, that she couldn’t even walk. If you believe her, there is no question that
it is abuse.

But the judge didn’t believe
her. The story just wasn’t
credible. I mean she was supposedly that
badly harmed, and yet child protective services were not informed. In all frankness, listening to the recording,
it sounded like the teenager was repeating a rehearsed answer. And if she was lying—and plainly the judge
believed she was—this was almost certainly the result of Brett’s manipulation. “Just say these things and Mommy will leave
her new boyfriend and come back to us and we’ll be a family again!” It’s not
only common, but tediously so in family law cases. I mean, it’s another example of Brett’s
vileness, but it’s a pedestrian one at that, which is almost certainly why
Judge Burrell saw right through it: she’s probably seen it a dozen times.

The other highlight was when
Brett Kimberlin called John Hoge to the stand.
The judge allowed Brett to do this for the limited purpose of proving
bias, as he proffered the wild theory that someone is paying T. to make
things up. Of course Brett’s attempt to “cross-examine”
Hoge was the courtroom equivalent of trying to punch a jellyfish or a bag of Play-Doh. John gave him exactly what the law required,
and nothing more. Sometimes Brett asked
the wrong questions, asking him for instance if he ever said he wanted him in
prison; John didn’t say those exact words.
And sometimes he inexplicably expected John to confirm his crazy
conspiracy theories. The judge had to
allow him the chance to prove them, but he failed utterly at doing so and made
himself look even more foolish in the attempt.
He did not gain credibility with the judge in that encounter.

As for T.’s side of it,
Brett can claim victory in that the judge didn’t find he had abused her,
either. But it’s not much of a victory
because the judge refused to hear the claim that he had sexually abused her prior
to the marriage. Further, the judge
refused to hear anything about his violent criminal record so when T. later argued that he had threatened her, the judge wasn’t supplied with the appropriate
context so she would see how serious the threat should be taken.

That might have been excluded
from that emergency hearing, but it won’t be excluded from the overall divorce
and custody fight. There is no way a
judge will not be interested in his sexual deviance, and if the circuit court
judges do not hear it, you can bet the Court of Appeals will reverse them. Really, seriously, I don’t see how Brett can
convince a judge to say, “sure, let’s give the kids to the convicted bomber and
pedophile.” Honestly, I would be
surprised if he is granted unsupervised visitation every other weekend. And that is assuming he is a free man after
the charges for statutory rape go through.

That isn’t by far all that happened
in the hearing, but that is the overall legally important parts. And in the next few posts, we will pick out
large and small revelations from these hearings.

---------------------------------------

Disclaimer:

I have accused some people,
particularly Brett Kimberlin, of
reprehensible conduct. In some cases, the conduct is even
criminal. In all cases, the only justice I want is through the
appropriate legal process—such as the criminal justice system. I do not want to see vigilante violence
against any person or any threat of such violence. This kind of conduct is not only morally
wrong, but it is counter-productive.

In the particular case of Brett
Kimberlin, I do not want you to even contact him. Do not call him. Do not write him a letter. Do not write him an email. Do not text-message him. Do not engage in any kind of directed
communication. I say this in part
because under Maryland law, that can quickly become harassment and I don’t want
that to happen to him.

And for that matter, don’t go on
his property. Don’t sneak around and try
to photograph him. Frankly try not to
even be within his field of vision. Your
behavior could quickly cross the line into harassment in that way too (not to
mention trespass and other concerns).

And do not contact his
organizations, either. And most of all, leave his family alone.

The only exception to all that is
that if you are reporting on this, there is of course nothing wrong with
contacting him for things like his official response to any stories you might
report. And even then if he tells you to
stop contacting him, obey that request. That
this is a key element in making out a harassment claim under Maryland law—that
a person asks you to stop and you refuse.

And let me say something
else. In my heart of hearts, I don’t
believe that any person supporting me has done any of the above. But if any of you have, stop it, and if you
haven’t don’t start.

1 comment:

Can you explain/guess as to why the judge would not hear about BK's violent criminal record in this hearing. It seems that in an Emergency hearing, there would be factors at play that require immediate action - and yet the judge refuses to hear anything about those factors? Whats the point of an Emergency hearing if the judge isn't going to allow discussion of the very circumstance that requires the Emergency hearing? I'm baffled.

About Me

Just a regular, sort of cranky moderately conservative lawyer, living in the greater Washington, D.C. and ruminating on law, life and the local spectator sport known as politics.
Btw, if you want to email me, write to edmd5.20.10 [at] gmail.com. I assume by now you understand that you are supposed to use one of those @ symbols for "[at]."